The impact of neck pain on gait health: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background Evidence exists demonstrating the negative impacts of chronic musculoskeletal pain on key measures of gait. Despite neck pain being the second most common musculoskeletal pain condition, there is a paucity of evidence exploring the impacts of neck pain specifically on these outcomes. The aims of this work were to systematically review the current evidence of the associations between chronic neck pain and measures of gait health and to conduct meta-analysis for quantitative assessment of the effect sizes under different walking conditions. Methods Systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. Databases searched included MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL, and PEDro. Eligible study designs included observational studies consisting of an exposure group with chronic neck pain and control group without chronic neck pain and primary outcomes relating to gait health. For outcomes amenable to meta-analysis, a random-effects model was used to derive summary estimates of Hedge’s g depicted graphically with forest plots. Other gait outcomes were narratively summarized. Risk of bias was also assessed. Results The original search yielded 1918 articles; 12 met final eligibility criteria including 10 cross-sectional studies. Outcomes were grouped first by the five domains of gait: pace, rhythm, asymmetry, variability, and postural control; and second by the tested walking conditions. Meta-analyses for gait speed revealed large effect-sizes indicating that individuals with chronic neck pain had slower measures of gait and lower measures of cadence. Gait outcomes that were narratively summarized supported these findings. Conclusion The quantitative and qualitative findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis suggest a negative impact of CNNP on measures of gait health, particularly gait speed, under various walking conditions. However, broad interpretation of these results should be cautious. Testing gait under dual task conditions may be particularly sensitive to the impact of CNNP, and future work is needed to better understand how pain disrupts this important functionality of the locomotor system. Additionally, consideration should be made to assess measures of variability and investigate these relationships in the older adult population. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12891-023-06721-2.

9 Specify the methods used to collect data from reports, including how many reviewers collected data from each report, whether they worked independently, any processes for obtaining or confirming data from study investigators, and if applicable, details of automation tools used in the process.
Data items 10a List and define all outcomes for which data were sought. Specify whether all results that were compatible with each outcome domain in each study were sought (e.g. for all measures, time points, analyses), and if not, the methods used to decide which results to collect.
10b List and define all other variables for which data were sought (e.g. participant and intervention characteristics, funding sources). Describe any assumptions made about any missing or unclear information.
Study risk of bias assessment 11 Specify the methods used to assess risk of bias in the included studies, including details of the tool(s) used, how many reviewers assessed each study and whether they worked independently, and if applicable, details of automation tools used in the process.
Effect measures 12 Specify for each outcome the effect measure(s) (e.g. risk ratio, mean difference) used in the synthesis or presentation of results.

Synthesis methods
13a Describe the processes used to decide which studies were eligible for each synthesis (e.g. tabulating the study intervention characteristics and comparing against the planned groups for each synthesis (item #5)).
13b Describe any methods required to prepare the data for presentation or synthesis, such as handling of missing summary statistics, or data conversions.
13c Describe any methods used to tabulate or visually display results of individual studies and syntheses.
13d Describe any methods used to synthesize results and provide a rationale for the choice(s). If meta-analysis was performed, describe the model(s), method(s) to identify the presence and extent of statistical heterogeneity, and software package(s) used.
13e Describe any methods used to explore possible causes of heterogeneity among study results (e.g. subgroup analysis, meta-regression).
13f Describe any sensitivity analyses conducted to assess robustness of the synthesized results.

Reporting bias assessment
14 Describe any methods used to assess risk of bias due to missing results in a synthesis (arising from reporting biases).
Certainty assessment 15 Describe any methods used to assess certainty (or confidence) in the body of evidence for an outcome. 16b Cite studies that might appear to meet the inclusion criteria, but which were excluded, and explain why they were excluded.

Study characteristics
17 Cite each included study and present its characteristics.

Risk of bias in studies
18 Present assessments of risk of bias for each included study.

Results of individual studies
19 For all outcomes, present, for each study: (a) summary statistics for each group (where appropriate) and (b) an effect estimate and its precision (e.g. confidence/credible interval), ideally using structured tables or plots.

Results of syntheses
20a For each synthesis, briefly summarise the characteristics and risk of bias among contributing studies.
20b Present results of all statistical syntheses conducted. If meta-analysis was done, present for each the summary estimate and its precision (e.g. confidence/credible interval) and measures of statistical heterogeneity. If comparing groups, describe the direction of the effect.
20c Present results of all investigations of possible causes of heterogeneity among study results.
20d Present results of all sensitivity analyses conducted to assess the robustness of the synthesized results.
Reporting biases 21 Present assessments of risk of bias due to missing results (arising from reporting biases) for each synthesis assessed.

Certainty of evidence
22 Present assessments of certainty (or confidence) in the body of evidence for each outcome assessed.

Discussion
23a Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence.
23b Discuss any limitations of the evidence included in the review.
23c Discuss any limitations of the review processes used.
23d Discuss implications of the results for practice, policy, and future research.

Registration and protocol
24a Provide registration information for the review, including register name and registration number, or state that the review was not registered.
24b Indicate where the review protocol can be accessed, or state that a protocol was not prepared.
24c Describe and explain any amendments to information provided at registration or in the protocol. Support 25 Describe sources of financial or non-financial support for the review, and the role of the funders or sponsors in the review.

Competing interests
26 Declare any competing interests of review authors.
Availability of data, code and other materials 27 Report which of the following are publicly available and where they can be found: template data collection forms; data extracted from included studies; data used for all analyses; analytic code; any other materials used in the review.